White House doctor: Trump in 'excellent health'

[OldSchool2]

5 hours ago, Butero said:

The voters were able to see his mental state before they voted, and it didn't matter.

I've already heard how nothing matters because voters didn't vote for a pastor -- just anyone who wasn't Hillary Clinton.

However....

[Steve_S]

5 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

And a forensic psychiatrist disagrees with you.

"We are assessing dangerousness, not making a diagnosis. The two are quite separate: Assessing dangerousness is making a judgment about the situation, not the person. The same person may not be dangerous in a different situation, for example. And it is his threat to public health, not his personal affairs, that is our concern...."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/5/16770060/trump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment

Or are you a forensic psychiatrist too?

They are assessing dangerousness of a person, which is, again, explicitly prohibited by their profession. There is no way to separate out trump the man from all of this. It is a human being that they are assessing. The guidelines do not allow exceptions for "assessing a person's threat to public health" at all.

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

And a forensic psychiatrist disagrees with you.

"We are assessing dangerousness, not making a diagnosis. The two are quite separate: Assessing dangerousness is making a judgment about the situation, not the person. The same person may not be dangerous in a different situation, for example. And it is his threat to public health, not his personal affairs, that is our concern...."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/5/16770060/trump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment

Or are you a forensic psychiatrist too?

It doesnt matter what a psychiatrist says.  What matters is what the American Psychiatric Association says.  They carry more weight than she does: 

Confidentiality

"Medical confidentiality is the physician’s obligation to his or her patient not to reveal the patient’s personal or health information without that patient’s explicit, informed permission. This obligation is an ethical duty distinct from the legal duty to protect patient privacy."

 

Public Statements

"For some in our profession, psychiatry can extend beyond the physician-patient relationship into the broader domain of public attention: in administration, politics, the courtroom, the media, and the internet. Psychiatrists need to sustain and nurture the ethical integrity of the profession when in the public eye. A psychiatrist may render a professional opinion about an individual after an appropriate clinical examination and accompanying waiver of confidentiality and should not do so unless the examination and waiver have occurred. When a personal examination has not been performed and when a psychiatrist is asked for a professional opinion about a person in light of public attention, a general discussion of relevant psychiatric topics — rather than offering opinions about that specific person — is the best means of facilitating public education. In some circumstances, such as academic scholarship about figures of historical importance, exploration of psychiatric issues (not diagnostic conclusions) may be reasonable provided that it has a sufficient evidence base and is subject to peer review and academic scrutiny based on relevant standards of scholarship. When, without any personal examination, the psychiatrist renders a clinical opinion about a historical figure, these limitations must be clearly acknowledged.
Moreover, labeling public figures cavalierly with psychiatric conditions, based on limited or indirect clinical knowledge is not consistent with this approach and undermines public trust in the profession of psychiatry...."

Those are excerpts from the APA PDF  on the ethical standards that Lee has violated by allowing herself to be the polticial pawn of the Left. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics

Sorry, but your argument is a failed one.   The APA, which is the organization over Lee and to whom she is accountable, disagrees with you and with her.

[Guest shiloh357]

14 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

"Cardiologists not associated with the White House said Wednesday that President Trump’s physical exam revealed serious heart concerns, including very high levels of so-called bad cholesterol, which raises the risk that Mr. Trump could suffer a heart attack while in office.

"Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, a rear admiral and the White House physician, said Tuesday in his report on the president’s medical condition that Mr. Trump was in 'excellent' cardiac health despite having an LDL cholesterol level of 143, well above the desired level of 100 or less.

"Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Institute, disputed that rosy assessment. He said on Wednesday that the most alarming fact is that the president’s LDL levels remain above 140 even though he is taking 10 milligrams of Crestor, a powerful drug that is used to lower cholesterol levels to well below 100...."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump’s-physical-revealed-serious-heart-concerns-outside-experts-say/ar-AAuPo0o?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Actually, 140 isn't as bad as this article wants to make it out to be.  They found a Dr. to say what they wanted to hear.   130 -159  is only borderline and he is on the low end of that scale, anyway.   His total cholesterol is 223, again low-end borderline. Ideal is 200 or less.  Trump is where a lot of people are.  Relatively few people have their cholesterol in the perfect zone of 100 or less. 

So, this article is trying to be alarmist about something that is as bad as they are making it sound.   He does need to get some exercise and bring that down, but he is in no danger of having a heart attack.   If his LDL were 200 or more, it would be a serious concern.  

Trump doesn't drink or smoke, which helps immensely.   Many of his critics can't say the same.    The Dr. says that Trump is not on any medication, so don't know how they make the claim that he is on Crestor.

It would be interesting to put members of the MSM through the same battery of tests that Trump was put through and see how they measure up to Trump's health.

He needs to lose weight, but is in over all good health, so there is no reason to try and blow up numbers that are not really that bad.

[OldSchool2]

8 hours ago, Steve_S said:

They are assessing dangerousness of a person, which is, again, explicitly prohibited by their profession....

Dr. Lee's profession is forensic psychiatry, which includes crime prevention assessments, as when she recently briefed a dozen members of Congress — Democrats and one Republican — on the president’s mental state.

Or wasn't Congress allowed to do that either?

[OldSchool2]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It doesnt matter what a psychiatrist says....

It matters what a forensic psychiatrist says before Congress when she makes an assessment about a sitting president.

"... This is a disagreement over ethical rules, not medical assessment. It would be hard to find a single psychiatrist, no matter of what political affiliation, who could confidently say Trump is not dangerous. I am sure there are some who feel unsure, or feel that they don’t have enough information or the expertise, and that is fine, since not everyone has devoted her 20-year career to studying, predicting, and preventing violence like I have. But there has not been a single serious mental health expert who disagrees on the medical side."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/5/16770060/trump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment

 

[OldSchool2]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, 140 isn't as bad as this article wants to make it out to be.  They found a Dr. to say what they wanted to hear.   130 -159  is only borderline and he is on the low end of that scale, anyway.   His total cholesterol is 223, again low-end borderline. Ideal is 200 or less.  Trump is where a lot of people are.  Relatively few people have their cholesterol in the perfect zone of 100 or less. 

So, this article is trying to be alarmist about something that is as bad as they are making it sound.   He does need to get some exercise and bring that down, but he is in no danger of having a heart attack....

The article simply said that elevated LDLs raise the risk that Prez Trump could suffer a heart attack while in office, and eating fast food while traveling on Air Force One doesn't help anyone's cholesterol.

According to the American Diabetes Association, the primary goal is an LDL cholesterol of less than 100 mg/dl. When my LDL went over 100, the VA put me on a statin -- and I am under 165 lbs. and a decade younger than Trump.

[Steve_S]

3 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

Dr. Lee's profession is forensic psychiatry, which includes crime prevention assessments, as when she recently briefed a dozen members of Congress — Democrats and one Republican — on the president’s mental state.

Or wasn't Congress allowed to do that either?

Congress is not bound by the ethical guidelines of the psychiatric profession. Psychiatrists are. Also, the fact that it was almost entirely democrats she met with points to the fact that this is mostly political. She is violating the ethical guidelines of her profession by doing what she is doing, that simple. 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

It matters what a forensic psychiatrist says before Congress when she makes an assessment about a sitting president.

"... This is a disagreement over ethical rules, not medical assessment. It would be hard to find a single psychiatrist, no matter of what political affiliation, who could confidently say Trump is not dangerous. I am sure there are some who feel unsure, or feel that they don’t have enough information or the expertise, and that is fine, since not everyone has devoted her 20-year career to studying, predicting, and preventing violence like I have. But there has not been a single serious mental health expert who disagrees on the medical side."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/5/16770060/trump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment

 

She is not his examiner.  And she is already violation of her profession's  code of ethics.  I even quoted from the APA concerning her unethical behavior.

I appeal to a higher power, namely the APA.  That overrules your argument.   Her opinion is unprofessional and is of little value until she examines the president personally. 

The doctor who examined him says he is fit for duty and he overrules you, as well.

[ayin jade]

4 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

It matters what a forensic psychiatrist says before Congress when she makes an assessment about a sitting president.

"... This is a disagreement over ethical rules, not medical assessment. It would be hard to find a single psychiatrist, no matter of what political affiliation, who could confidently say Trump is not dangerous. I am sure there are some who feel unsure, or feel that they don’t have enough information or the expertise, and that is fine, since not everyone has devoted her 20-year career to studying, predicting, and preventing violence like I have. But there has not been a single serious mental health expert who disagrees on the medical side."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/5/16770060/trump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment

 

She violated those standards of practice too. Forensic psychiatry evaluates people for fitness to stand in court for criminal cases, for adoption and custody hearings and other court cases. Forensic psychiatrists evaluate the patient based on physical evidence and examination. She has not done any of that. She is going outside her practice and making accusations (what she calls an assessment) without following the standards of practice in her field. 

A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments.

 

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Ethics Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry

Adopted May, 2005

 

Respect for the individual's right of privacy and the maintenance of confidentiality should be major concerns when performing forensic evaluations. Psychiatrists should maintain confidentiality to the extent possible, given the legal context. Special attention should be paid to the evaluee’s understanding of medical confidentiality. A forensic evaluation requires notice to the evaluee and to collateral sources of reasonably anticipated limitations on confidentiality. Information or reports derived from a forensic evaluation are subject to the rules of confidentiality that apply to the particular evaluation, and any disclosure should be restricted accordingly.

At the outset of a face-to-face evaluation, notice should be given to the evaluee of the nature and purpose of the evaluation and the limits of its confidentiality. The informed consent of the person undergoing the forensic evaluation should be obtained when necessary and feasible. If the evaluee is not competent to give consent, the evaluator should follow the appropriate laws of the jurisdiction.

When psychiatrists function as experts within the legal process, they should adhere to the principle of honesty and should strive for objectivity. Although they may be retained by one party to a civil or criminal matter, psychiatrists should adhere to these principles when conducting evaluations, applying clinical data to legal criteria, and expressing opinions.

Expertise in the practice of forensic psychiatry should be claimed only in areas of actual knowledge, skills, training, and experience.

http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm

 

An additional article regarding forensic psychiatry.

Forensic psychiatric assessment involves a comprehensive psychiatric history including details of the event leading to request for current assessment. 

Assessments should specifically include forensic history, if any; family details like socioeconomic status, history of psychiatric illness, substance abuse, or a criminal record in the family; personal history; mental status examination, and personality assessment. Minor modifications in the assessment format may be required depending on the kind of request.

Hospitalization may be required if the person needs to be observed over a period, before a definite opinion can be given about the diagnosis. If hospitalization is not indicated or is not feasible due to lack of a suitable facility, repeated assessments over a period should be conducted.

Physical investigations should be ordered depending on the case. Psychological testing for personality profile, intelligence, cognitive functions and differential diagnosis may also be required.

Preparing a report for the court is the final step after a detailed assessment. The report should mainly address the questions asked by the court. It should be brief, and use simple and clear language without any scientific jargon. Sources of information like old clinical records, if available or family members or other informants, need to be mentioned. Dates and nature of assessments like clinical examination, inpatient observation and investigations including psychological assessment should be mentioned. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890920/